THOMAS] Virginia's policy toward the Indians 563 



suits wliicli arose out of these claims. It is next to impossible at this 

 day to ascertain all these individual purchases; moreover, it is not 

 ai)parent that it would serve any good purpose iu this connection to 

 give them were it jiossible to do so. 



It has been stated repeatedly that the policy of the colonies was the 

 same as that afterward adopted by the United States. While this may 

 be true in a broad sense, there were difterences in method which had 

 important bearings on the history of the different ^irovinces. In fact, 

 the theory in regard to the Indian tenure was not precisely the same ' 

 throughout, as will become evident from a perusal of what is presented. 

 It Avill also be seen that the idea on which the authorities based their 

 proceedings was not always the same, those of one colony looking 

 chiefly to meeting the claims of the Iiulians, while the main object in 

 other cases was to obtain as much land as possible, thus differing, 

 though dealing fairly. 



VIRGIXIA 



Although the letters patent of James I to Sir Thomas Gage and oth- 

 ers for " two several colonies," dated April 10, lOOG, and his second 

 charter, May 23, 1609, to ''the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers 

 and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony of Yirginia," 

 granted full and complete right in the land, "in free and common 

 socage," yet neither contains any allusion to the rights or title of the 

 natives. The third charter, granted the last-named company March 

 12, 1611-12, also fails to make any allusion to the title of the Indians 

 or to the mode of dealing with them. 



The " instructions " given by the council of the London Virginia 

 Company to the first adventurers (1606) contains the following very 

 slight indication of the policy to be adopted in dealing with the Indi- 

 ans: "In all your passages you must have great care not to offend the 

 naturals, if you can eschew it; and employ some few of your company 

 to trade with them for coru and all other lasting victuals if you {thetj:') 

 have any : and this you must do before that they perceive you mean to 

 plant among them." ' 



Burk,^ speaking of the Loudon Com])any and the nature of its gov- 

 ernment, summarizes its dealings with the Indians as follows: 



At the coming of the English, the Indians naturally enjoyed the best and most 

 convenient stations for fishing, and the most fertile lands: But in proportion as 

 new settlers came iu, they rapidly lost those advantages. In some cases the colonists 

 claimed by the right of conquest, and the imaginary title conferred by the king's 

 charter. In general however, they acted on lietter princijiles, anc" purchased from the 

 heads of tribes, the right of soil, iu a fair and (as far as was practicable) in a legal 

 manner. In the treaty entered into between sir G. Yeardley and Opechancanough, 

 we find a sweeping clause, granting to the English permission to reside and inhabit 

 at such places on the banks of certain rivers, which were not already occupied by 



'E. D. Neill, History of the London Virginia Company, ii. 8; Smitli'8 Worlis, Arbor's edition, Tlie 

 Englisb Scholar'a Library, No. 16, p. xxxv. 

 ■^Ui8tory of ^'iryiuia (1804), vol., I, p. 312, appendix. 



